TULI FOUNDATION OF HOLISTIC EDUCATION & ART (HEART),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5957/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 February 2016AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b). This decision was based on the fact that the assessee had appeared during assessment proceedings and similar penalties in related cases were deleted by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to comply with statutory notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with statutory notices is justified when the assessee appeared during assessment proceedings and similar penalties were deleted in related cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta
For Respondent: Shri Premanand J

This is an appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12th August 2013, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–37, Mumbai, confirming imposition of penalty of ` 10,000 under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2009–10.

2.

As alleged by the Assessing Officer, in response to statutory notice under section 142(1) of the Act, assessee never complied. The 2 M/s. Tuli Foundation of Holistic Education & Art (HEART) Assessing Officer, therefore, issued a notice requiring assessee to show cause, why penalty under section 271(1)(b) shall not be imposed. Though, assessee submitted her explanation explaining reasons for which penalty should not be imposed, but the Assessing Officer, rejecting the explanation of the assessee, passed order imposing penalty of ` 10,000 under section 271(1)(b). Being aggrieved of penalty imposed, assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

3.

The learned Commissioner (Appeals), finding no merit in the submissions of the assessee, confirmed imposition of penalty.

4.

At the outset, learned Representative for both the parties agreed before us that similar penalty imposed under identical facts and circumstances in case of another group company viz. M/s. Cabochon Arts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v/s DCIT, ITA no.5952/Mum./2013, etc., order dated 19th February 2015, were deleted by the Tribunal considering the fact that in course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had appeared and similar penalty imposed earlier was deleted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). As the facts involved in the present appeal are identical, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we delete the penalty.

3 M/s. Tuli Foundation of Holistic Education & Art (HEART)

5.

In the result, appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.02.2016

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →